Journal of Isfahan Medical School

Journal of Isfahan Medical School

Distributive Frequency of Abnormal Mammographic Findings in Local Mammography and Comparison with Standard Mammography in a Private Center in Iran: A 6-Year Study

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors
Mehri Sirous 1
Nasim Shabani 2
Parisa Sotoodeh-Shahnani 3
1 Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan , Iran
2 Student of Medicine, Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 Radiologist, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
Background: First cause of women mortality due to cancer in worldwide is breast cancer. Approximately, 180000 new cases of breast cancer are diagnosed each year in the United States of America. In Iran, breast cancer affects women at least one decade younger than their counterparts in developed countries. In recent decades, mammography is the first method used in screening and early detection of breast cancer.Methods: This cross-sectional study was done between 2010 and 2015 in a private mammography center in Isfahan City, Iran. All patients came for at least one mammography. During 6 years, of 1015 patients who came for standard mammography, 226 had the criteria to enter the study. We recommended local mammography for them.Findings: The patients' age ranged from 36 to 71 years with a mean age of 47.0 ± 6.9 years. We found that the most positive finding in standard mammography that we referred for local mammography was focal asymmetry and the least was spiculated mass. Positive findings of microcalcification and spiculated mass had more prevalence with increasing age.Conclusion: In comparison between standard mammography and local mammography, specificity of standard mammography was low for positive finding of focal asymmetry and was high for microcalcification. If we can decrease the requests for local mammography in focal asymmetry, the specificity of local mammography in screening and early detection of breast cancer will increase.
Keywords
Breast tumors
Mammography
Screening
  1. Edwards BK, Brown ML, Wingo PA, Howe HL, Ward E, Ries LA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2002, featuring population-based trends in cancer treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97(19): 1407-27.
  2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010; 60(5): 277-300.
  3. Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. CMAJ 1992; 147(10): 1459-76.
  4. Harirchi I, Ghaemmaghami F, Karbakhsh M, Moghimi R, Mazaherie H. Patient delay in women presenting with advanced breast cancer: an Iranian study. Public Health 2005; 119(10): 885-91.
  5. Sirous M, Ebrahimi A. The epidemiology of breast masses among women in Esfahan. Iran J Surg 2008; 16(3): 51-6. [In Persian].
  6. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010; 127(12): 2893-917.
  7. Hunt KK, Robertson JFR, Bland KI. The breast. In: Brunicardi FC, Andersen DK, Billiar TR, Dunn DL, Hunter JG, Matthews JB, et al, editors. Schwartz's principles of surgery. 10th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2014. p. 497.
  8. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberg C, Stefanick ML, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: Principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002; 288(3): 321-33.
  9. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58(2): 71-96.
  10. Woolf SH. The 2009 breast cancer screening recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2010; 303(2): 162-3.
  11. American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines [Online]. [cited 2014 Oct 10]; Available from: URL: https://www.cancer.org/health-care-professionals/american-cancer-society-prevention-early-detection-guidelines/breast-cancer-screening-guidelines.html
  12. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AM, Chen TH. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am 2004; 42(5): 793-806, v.
  13. Michell MJ. The breast. In: Sutton D, Reznek R, Murfitt J, editors. Textbook of radiology and imaging. 7th ed. London, UK: Churchill Livingstone; 2002. p. 1451-88.
  14. Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179(3): 671-7.
  15. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: Exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008; 246(2): 376-83.
  16. Odle TG. MQSA update. Radiol Technol 2003; 74(3): 202-20.
  17. Armstrong P, Wastie M, Rockall AG. Diagnostic imaging. 7th ed. London, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013.
  18. van Engeland S, Karssemeijer N. Exploitation of Correspondence Between CC and MLO Views in Computer Aided Mass Detection. In: Astley SM, Brady M, Rose C, Zwiggelaar R, editors. Digital Mammography: 8th International Workshop, IWDM 2006, Manchester, UK, June 18-21, 2006. Proceedings. Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2006. p. 237-42.
  19. Faulk RM, Sickles EA. Efficacy of spot compression-magnification and tangential views in mammographic evaluation of palpable breast masses. Radiology 1992; 185(1): 87-90.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 35, Issue 449 - Serial Number 449
September and October 2017
Pages 1315-1320

  • Receive Date 23 July 2017
  • Accept Date 06 April 2022